TÜRKİYE’DE ÜNİVERSİTEYE GİRİŞ SINAVI TÜRLERİNE GÖRE FARKLI ÜNİVERSİTELERDEKİ ÖĞRENCİLERİN YARATICILIKLARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Yıl 2022, , 481 - 498, 21.12.2022

Çağrı Barış Kasap

https://doi.org/10.20488/sanattasarim.1221832

Öz

Yaratıcılık, en gerekli ve değerli insan yeteneklerinden biridir. Temel bir bakış açısıyla incelendiğinde,
çoğu zaman eğitimcilerin, sınıftaki öğrencileri yaratıcı düşünmeye teşvik etmeleri beklenir ya da istenir.
Fakat bu amacın gerçekleştirilmesi için öncelikle başka bir faktörün incelenmesi gerekmektedir. Eğitimcilerin
yaratıcılık tanımı ve kriterleri ile öğrencilerin yaratımları örtüşmekte midir? Bu makalede, Guilford’un (1950,
1967a) ıraksak düşünme, merak, akıcılık, esneklik, detaylandırma ve özgünlük kavramları bağlamında, AYT
(Alan Yeterlilik Testi) ya da ÖYS (Özel Yetenek Sınavı) ile Güzel Sanatlar ya da Sanat ve Tasarım Fakülte’lerinin
Grafik Tasarım, Görsel İletişim Tasarımı ve İletişim Tasarımı Bölümlerinin birine giren öğrencilerden
hangilerinin ilerideki eğitim dönemleri içerisinde daha yaratıcı oldukları irdelenmiştir. Bu doğrultuda,
aynı profesörün 2018-2020 yılları arasında Türkiye’de birçok farklı üniversitede ders verdiği öğrencilerinin
çalışmalarından seçmeler yapılmış ve Guilford’un yaratıcılık kavramlarına göre yeniden değerlendirilerek
kümelenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, AYT ile giren öğrencilerin yetenek sınavı ile giren akranlarına göre daha az
meraklı, akıcı, esnek, ayrıntılı ve özgün oldukları tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yaratıcılık, Tasarım eğitimi, J. P. Guilford, Alan yeterlilik testi (AYT), Özel yetenek sınavı (ÖYS)

ASSESSING STUDENTS’ CREATIVITY IN DESIGN EDUCATION AT DIFFERENT UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY THROUGH THEIR ADMISSION EXAMINATION TYPES

Öz

Creativity is a wanted and desirable human skill. When examined through the viewpoint of
a fundamental exertion, much of the time, educators are asked or urged to encourage creative thinking
in the classroom. However, do the educators’ definition and criteria of creativity match up with students’
creations? In this article, the question whether students who take the national entrance examination or
who take the aptitude tests to study at university are more creative in the sense of Guilford’s (1950, 1967a)
concepts of divergent thinking, curiosity, fluency, flexibility, elaboration and originality was elaborated. In
order to achieve that aim, selections of works of the same professor’s students when he was teaching at
several different universities between 2018-2020 in Turkey have been chosen and clustered as re-evaluated
according to the adoptions of Guilford’s concepts of creativity. In the end, it was found out that students who
take the national entrance examination are more divergent in their thinking while being less curious, fluent,
flexible, elaborate and original than their peers who take the aptitude tests.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Creativity, Design education, J. P. Guilford, Area efficiency test (AYT), Aptitude test (ÖYS)

Kaynakça

• • Aberg-Bengtsson, L. (2005). Separating Quantitative and Analytic Dimensions in the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test (Swe- SAT). Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49 (4), 359-383.
• • Allanwood, G and Beare, P. (2019). User Experience Design: A Practical Introduction (2nd Edition). New York: Bloomsbury.
• • Altan, E. B. and Tan, S. (14 February 2020). Concepts of Creativity in Design Based learning in STEM education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09569-y
• • Altınkurt, L. (August 2006). Üniversitelerdeki Güzel Sanatlar Eğitim Programları Giriş Sınav Sonuçlarının Değerlendirilmesi (Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Güzel Sanatlar Fakültesi Örneği) [Assessment of the Results of the Entrance Examination for Fine Arts Education Programs (the case of Dumlupınar University, Faculty of Fine Arts)]. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15, 227-238.
• • Atkinson, R. C. and Geiser S. (2009). Reflections on a Century of College Admissions Tests. Educational Researcher, 38 (9), 665-676.
• • Barlex, D. (2007). Creativity in School Design and Technology in England: A Discussion of Influence. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(2), 149–162.
• • Beller, M. (2001). Admission to Higher Education in Israel and the role of the Psychometric Entrance Test: Educational and Political Dilemmas. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Pratice, 8 (3), 315-337.
• • Boden, M. A. (2004). The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge.
• • Bolden, D. S., Harries, T. V., & Newton, D. P. (2010). ‘Pre-Service Primary Teachers’ Conceptions of Creativity in Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73, 143–157.
• • Cliffordson, C. (2008). Differential Prediction of Study Success Across Academic Programs in the Swedish Context: the Validity of Grades and Tests as Selection Instruments for Higher Education. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 56-75.
• • Crouse, J., & Trusheim, D. (1988). The Case Against the SAT. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• • Cszikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity-Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harpercollins Publisher.
• • Diakidoy, I. A. N., and Costantinou, C. P. (2001). Creativity in Physics: Response Fluency and Task Specificity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 401–410.
• • Diakidoy, I.-A. N., and Kanari, E. (1999). Student Teachers’ Beliefs about Creativity. British Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 225–243.
• • Dorst, K. (2003). Understanding Design: 150 Reflections on Being a Designer. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
• • Endean, L., and George, D. R. (1982). Observing Thirty Able Youngsters at Science Enrichment Course. School Science Review, 64(227), 213–224.
• • Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
• • Guilford, J. P. (1957). Creative Abilities in the Arts. Psychological Review, 64(2), 110–118.
• • Guilford, J. P. (1967a). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
• • Guilford, J. P. (1967b). Creativity: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 3–14.
• • Gralewski, J., and Karwowski, M. (2013). Polite Girls and Creative Boys? Students’ Gender Moderates Accuracy of Teachers’ Ratings of Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 290–304.
• • Harkins, M. (2013). Basics Typography 03: Understanding Type. West Sussex, UK: AVA Publishing.
• • Horowitz, R. (1999). Creative Problem Solving in Engineering Design. (Doctoral dissertation), Tel-Aviv University.
• • Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., and Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the Creative Design Process by the Integration of Engineering Design and Cognitive Psychology Literature. Design Studies, 29(2), 160–180.
• • Hung, W., and Sitthiworachart, J. (2020). In-Service Teachers’ Conception of Creativity and Its Relation with Technology: A Perspective from Thailand. Asia-Pacific Education Research, 29(2), 137-146.
• • Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., and Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of Creativity Assessment. New Jersey: Wiley.
• • Kaufman, J. C., and Sternberg, R. J. (2007). The International Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• • Kokotsaki, D. (2012). Pre-Service Student-Teachers’ Conceptions of Creativity in the Primary Music Classroom. Research studies in Music Education, 34(2), 129–156.
• • Lauer, D. and Pentak, S. (2015). Design Basics (9th edition). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.
• • Leikin, R., Berman, A., and Koichu, B. (2009). Creativity in Mathematics and the Education of Gifted Students. Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
• • Mayasari, T., Kadarohman, A., Rusdiana, D., and Kaniawati, I. (2016). Exploration of Student’s Creativity by Integrating STEM Knowledge into Creative Products. T. Hidayat et al. (Eds), Proceedings of International Seminar on Mathematics, Science, and Computer Science Education (MSCEIS 2015) içinde (pp. 080005: 1–5). Bandung, Indonesia.
• • Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A., Lamb, K. N., and Kettler, T. (2016). Examining Teacher Perceptions of Creativity: A systematic Review of the Literature. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 9–30.
• • Moser, H. and Moser, I. (2011). The Art Directors’ Handbook of Professional Magazine Design: Classic Techniques and Inspirational Approaches. London: Thames & Hudson.
• • Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why Isn’t Creativity More Important to Educational Psychologist? Potentials, Pitfalls, and Future Directions in Creativity Research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.
• • Rutland, M., & Barlex, D. (2008). Perspectives on Pupil Creativity in Design and Technology in the Lower Secondary Surriculum in England. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(2), 139–165.
• • Scott, C. L. (1999). Teachers’ Biases Toward Creative Children. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 321.
• • Syukri, M., Halim, L., & Mohtar, L. E. (2017). Engineering Design Process: Cultivating Creativity Skills Through Development of Science Technical Product. Jurnal Fizik Malaysia, 38(1), 10055–10065.
• • Starko, A. J. (2014). Creativity in the Classroom Schools of Curious Delight. NY: Routledge.
• • Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking - Directions Manual and Scoring Guide. Verbal Test Booklet A. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
• • Williams, J.H. (1977). Psychology of Women. New York: W.W. Norton.
• • Yiğit, S. (2018). Curiosity as an Intellectual Virtue. İ. İnan, L. Watson, D. Whitcomb and S. Yiğit (Eds), The Moral Psychology of Curiosity (pp. 117-140). Maryland: Rowman Littlefield.
• • Weixel, S., Morse, B., and Morse, C. (1980). Graphic and Animation Basics (New Edition). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
• • Zeidner, M. (1987). Gender and Culture Interaction Effects on Scholastic Aptitude Test Performance: Some Israeli Findings. International Journal of Psychology, 22, 111-119.